Democrats, Debates, DJ Apollo (not necessarily in that order)
Well, tonight, Oct. 1, is our last voter project. DJ Apollo will be here from San Francisco for the event and local Democrats are hosting voter registration. Rolls close on Oct. 5, so this will be a good venue for local Dems to give a final push. Meanwhile, Andy should be coming with the video camera so we can get some more footage and I'm coming with the digital camera to get more pics for my "election diary" I'm trying to pull together for an upcoming issue.
Interviewed protesters today at the corner of St. Francis and Cerrillos Road. It was very loud with all the cars honking! People are really worked up.
The debate was, I thought, weirdly boring. My email this morning was out of control. It seems like everyone in American stayed up all night recording their thoughts on it. I wonder if we will ever return to a time when everybody isn't a pundit. I'm getting to the point where my entire interest in politics has become entirely postmodern. I was almost surprised to see actual candidates last night. The entire election feels like a ghost in the machine.
CNN had all these undecided voters hooked up to weird electronic devices to record their reactions in "real time." Apparently, bloggers and the like are making this an exciting event because we can get reactions in "real time." My reaction, recorded here, also is in real time. At least, I think it's real. It's not immediate. I don't know why the idea of an immediate reaction is more valuable than one that comes a day or two later. Guess it's good I edit a weekly paper. Still, this whole immediacy concept seems to have overtaken any other political value. Politics as reality TV. Look, this is what's "really" happening, and yet there's just as much spin. It's just spin happening at a rapid rate which, in my "real time" view makes it less, not more, valuable, because it's solely reactive and not contemplated at all. Also, for what it's worth, the "senior political analysts" on CNN are being paid too much. Their analysis is less thoughtful and interesting than the random cyber blogger. One guy's basic contribution was to say something along the lines of "this is about undecided voters, because it's harder to change your mind once you've made it up." Thank you Einstein. What kind of meaningful political analysis is that? Of course, all Bush seems to say is that Kerry changes his mind too much, and Kerry counters with saying Bush hasn't changed his mind enough. So here's my senior SFR political analysis of Election, 2004:
Bush: It's bad to change your mind
Kerry: It's bad not to change your mind
Media: This is about people who haven't made up their minds.
I really don't think Thomas Jefferson would be very impressed.
Interviewed protesters today at the corner of St. Francis and Cerrillos Road. It was very loud with all the cars honking! People are really worked up.
The debate was, I thought, weirdly boring. My email this morning was out of control. It seems like everyone in American stayed up all night recording their thoughts on it. I wonder if we will ever return to a time when everybody isn't a pundit. I'm getting to the point where my entire interest in politics has become entirely postmodern. I was almost surprised to see actual candidates last night. The entire election feels like a ghost in the machine.
CNN had all these undecided voters hooked up to weird electronic devices to record their reactions in "real time." Apparently, bloggers and the like are making this an exciting event because we can get reactions in "real time." My reaction, recorded here, also is in real time. At least, I think it's real. It's not immediate. I don't know why the idea of an immediate reaction is more valuable than one that comes a day or two later. Guess it's good I edit a weekly paper. Still, this whole immediacy concept seems to have overtaken any other political value. Politics as reality TV. Look, this is what's "really" happening, and yet there's just as much spin. It's just spin happening at a rapid rate which, in my "real time" view makes it less, not more, valuable, because it's solely reactive and not contemplated at all. Also, for what it's worth, the "senior political analysts" on CNN are being paid too much. Their analysis is less thoughtful and interesting than the random cyber blogger. One guy's basic contribution was to say something along the lines of "this is about undecided voters, because it's harder to change your mind once you've made it up." Thank you Einstein. What kind of meaningful political analysis is that? Of course, all Bush seems to say is that Kerry changes his mind too much, and Kerry counters with saying Bush hasn't changed his mind enough. So here's my senior SFR political analysis of Election, 2004:
Bush: It's bad to change your mind
Kerry: It's bad not to change your mind
Media: This is about people who haven't made up their minds.
I really don't think Thomas Jefferson would be very impressed.
posted by Julia at 2:30 PM
<< Home